On Jun 5, 2005, at 1:30 PM, Sven de Marothy wrote:
On Sun, 2005-06-05 at 06:21 -0300, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
That's not fair. I told you that *I* think that extending java.lang
is a *bad idea*. You many not agree, but that's not the same is
NIH. That doesn't mean that java.lang.VMObject can't be move to
another package, preserving the code in it's entirety. Yes, that's a
change for VMs that were [lazily] depending on language semantics to
protect those private package extensions, but that's life.
Yes, well the impression I was getting was that the discussion here
has
drifted away from the pros and cons of the Classpath VM interface, and
towards ideas of creating your own, or reimplementing java.lang, or
even
forking Classpath.
Fair enough. But I'd really like to rope this back to the pros and
cons of the GNU Classpath VM interface.
Also, I don't know what the 1.4 and 1.5 Java API requirements on the
VM are, but given that GNU Classpath isn't there yet, isn't it even
plausible that may have something to add?
Yes, 1.5 *will* add new requirements to the VM interface. But the
Classpath VM interface isn't some immutable static thing either.
All I'm
saying here is: how about crossing that bridge when you get there,
instead of deciding out of hand that it isn't good enough?
Guess which version of J2SE we want to do...
geir
/Sven
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
